Duran was 18 years old, it was his 17th pro fight and he won the title 25 months later while Marcel was 21 years old, in his 28th pro fight and won the title 18 months later. Claiming Marcel was pre prime to discredit the win isn't accurate imo as Duran was even more pre prime than Marcel was.

Your 2 lies: 1. Duran was naturally the bigger man against Benitez. 2.You avoid Duran threads as much as you can. Those are 2 lies that you have written. Just because Duran fought at 154 before Hearns and Benitez does not mean that he was natural at that weight. And after Duran fought initially at 147, he went back down to 135, a fact that you fail to mention. In reality, Duran's physical dimensions were almost identical to Julio Cesar Chavez's, another fact that you ignore, instead insisting that Duran was much bigger than JCC, which is another falsehood on your part.

Is this about me or Duran. You call me pompous and then you are making me the topic of this thread and not Duran. Duran was not a small guy in weight and handling bigger weights. He went up in weight more than any of the fab 4, and much higher than Benitez ever did. Like I said he was at 154 in 1978 before Benitez,Hearns or Leonard ever fought there. What am I lying about?
And when I see a thread about Duran I try to avoid it because it does not get anywhere. I find myself repeating what I have said before. My opinion will not change on the subject since I have believed what I believe about Duran since the late 1980s.
But if I see a comment that the best win in boxing history is Duran over Leonard when Duran was prime and Ray was still improving, and still Ray fought his fight and Duran could not knock him out, I have a hard time not commenting because I know in my heart that no way is that win the greatest in history. And people saying little Duran moving up and beating the great Ray Leonard is making Duran small and Ray great just to make the win greater, when Duran handled the weight well and Ray was not the peak champion he was later.
Ray was not yet a great fighter. He was improving, and if you do not understand how a great fighter is always a work in progress from when he was younger, than I am not sure discussing anything here matters. The fact that Ray retired in 1982 makes 1980 seem like he was prime, but had he fought like Hearns did the whole decade and into the 1990s, 1980 would have been seen more as his learning years, which it was.

Your "...draw me in comment..." demonstrates pomposity and the opposite of humility, as if anyone's agenda was to "draw you in".

pomposity? That is not my nature, and most people who see my comments know I comment without arguing and calling names. If I was going to do that I wouldn't waste my time on a boxing forum. I come to discuss and enjoy myself.
As for my comment about drawing me in, I see comments on the Duran threads before I even comment "where is Mag?" and other things. People want me to come to these threads and that is fine, and they probably think it makes the threads more entertaining to have differing opinions-but the truth is I do not comment just to create a back and forth discussion or for entertainment. I really do comment mainly when I see a comment about how great a win Duran over Leonard was, or Duran beating Moore was such a great win and so was the Barkley win, yet the Benitez and Hearns wins are ignored because Duran was out of shape.

Like I always said Duran is not in shape for his fights vs. the greatest guys he ever fought, but he is in shape for Moore and Barkley? I always thought that excuse and the little Duran moving up in weight and being so old as really bad excuses given the fact he did indeed fight at 154 in 1978 before Hearns,Leonard and Benitez. His fans say he is great for beating Moore and Barkley, but the Hearns and Benitez fights don't matter because he was out of shape. Why would he train for Moore and Barkley and not Hearns and Benitez? How does that make sense? It really doesn't. That is like Kobe Bryant or Lebron James saying now I am in the NBA finals. let me not try as hard.

pomposity? That is not my nature, and most people who see my comments know I comment without arguing and calling names.If I was going to do that I wouldn't waste my time on a boxing forum. I come to discuss and enjoy myself.

You clown a Duran player, they'll come after you giving counter opportunity's.

I am so bad at countering though. I am more of a bob and weave guy but christ, a right hand from RD and I get rocked. ****es me off to no end. I want to be good with him so bad but his pillow hands kill me.

I am so bad at countering though. I am more of a bob and weave guy but christ, a right hand from RD and I get rocked. ****es me off to no end. I want to be good with him so bad but his pillow hands kill me.

1. Evaluate his record at Lightweight, which is no worse than top 3. Also consider his longivity and the number of fights he's had. If you stop there, he's probably top 15-20

Next, his win over Leonard, who is certainly top 5 w.w. of all time.
If you stop there, he's closing in on top 10.

And just like you insist on punishing Duran for his losses, which is fair, you can't then decide to downplay this win. You can't have it both ways.

Loss to SRL was a huge blemish, but it really was more of a mental deficiency than anything else. but yes it was bad. At the very worst, this loss, negates the win, it can't be any worse than that.

His loss to Hearns, wasn't nearly so bad because you're really getting into a huge, huge size mismatch.

You say Pac beat more ATG's, which of those ATG's would have beaten either SRL or Hearns?

So this leaves him around the top 15-20 mark again. His near win over Hagler and his win over Barkley are huge.. putting him again in the top 10 or close to it. Barkley beat Hearns twice and he's a physical monster compared to Duran. He had every conceivable advantage except boxing skills. He was younger, stronger, taller, faster, longer reach, and far more power, it should have been a mismatch. And Hagler, is a top 5 ATG middleweight how can going the distance with him be meaningless?

Again back to your pac comparison, would Pac have gone the distance with Hagler, and beat Barkley?

So we're back to him being close or in the top 10.

Lost to Benitez, Sims beat Moore, and Palomino again, a bit of a wash.

The difference between him and say SRL, is that I agree, SRL showed great diversity in terms of having to fight various styles, but he woefully lacked in the number of fights he fought. Duran stuck around long enough to see him go into a major slump, and then get out of it.

But beating SRL (who beat Benitez) and Barkley (who beat Hearns) shows that on any given day a closely matched fight can go either way. And the reason I like Duran so much is exactly why I don't like Mayweather, he wasn't scared to loose. He just wanted to test himself to the limit and give the fans their monies worth. Even SRL can't say that. His career was far more calculated with hand picked opponents than Duran's ever was, because he had the marketing power of being American and having that gold metal.

So no way is Pac rated higher than Duran, for the reasons I've outlined, and the main reason Duran rates higher than SRL boils down to longivity more than anything else.

1. Evaluate his record at Lightweight, which is no worse than top 3. Also consider his longivity and the number of fights he's had. If you stop there, he's probably top 15-20

Next, his win over Leonard, who is certainly top 5 w.w. of all time.
If you stop there, he's closing in on top 10.

And just like you insist on punishing Duran for his losses, which is fair, you can't then decide to downplay this win. You can't have it both ways.

Loss to SRL was a huge blemish, but it really was more of a mental deficiency than anything else. but yes it was bad. At the very worst, this loss, negates the win, it can't be any worse than that.

His loss to Hearns, wasn't nearly so bad because you're really getting into a huge, huge size mismatch.

You say Pac beat more ATG's, which of those ATG's would have beaten either SRL or Hearns?

So this leaves him around the top 15-20 mark again. His near win over Hagler and his win over Barkley are huge.. putting him again in the top 10 or close to it. Barkley beat Hearns twice and he's a physical monster compared to Duran. He had every conceivable advantage except boxing skills. He was younger, stronger, taller, faster, longer reach, and far more power, it should have been a mismatch. And Hagler, is a top 5 ATG middleweight how can going the distance with him be meaningless?

Again back to your pac comparison, would Pac have gone the distance with Hagler, and beat Barkley?

So we're back to him being close or in the top 10.

Lost to Benitez, Sims beat Moore, and Palomino again, a bit of a wash.

The difference between him and say SRL, is that I agree, SRL showed great diversity in terms of having to fight various styles, but he woefully lacked in the number of fights he fought. Duran stuck around long enough to see him go into a major slump, and then get out of it.

But beating SRL (who beat Benitez) and Barkley (who beat Hearns) shows that on any given day a closely matched fight can go either way. And the reason I like Duran so much is exactly why I don't like Mayweather, he wasn't scared to loose. He just wanted to test himself to the limit and give the fans their monies worth. Even SRL can't say that. His career was far more calculated with hand picked opponents than Duran's ever was, because he had the marketing power of being American and having that gold metal.

So no way is Pac rated higher than Duran, for the reasons I've outlined, and the main reason Duran rates higher than SRL boils down to longivity more than anything else.

This is a cool post. You and MAG made the best posts in this thread so far!!! Good points.